I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.

Slower and less useful? seriously? there is some quirk in AF (in low light) when you half press the shutter but that's about the only "problem" i have. I've used my friend's 5d2 and i find the 5d3's AF select way more useful

Quote

I'm sure that both people shoot from inside waterfalls appreciate that.

In my part of the world i frequently visit "hill stations" where there is too much fog / dew. So it IS great to have better weather sealing

Quote

How is not being able to see what AF spot is selected "better"??

How is this related to having a better viewfinder? Last time i checked the view finder was something like 5d2's 98% Vs 100% in 5d3

Quote

One CF slot.

Well, i agree. Dual CF slot would have been a better option but probably it came down to limited real estate and size of the camera

Quote

Welcome, but not along worth rebuying a body.

Probably, if you base your decision on this parameter alone. But coming from 7d this is a much better experience to me compared to the 5d2.

Quote

The sensor is effectively identical to that in the 5D2, no high-ISO usability improvement, no improvement on low-ISO banding/shadow noise. Note that having more aggressive default NR when saving to JPEG files does not qualify as a high-ISO improvement.

I am not an expert on this. But technically sensor is not identical. To me at higher ISO (>3200ish) it's a clear 1/2 stop improvement over 5d2 and definitely better handling of banding/shadow noise over 5d2 overall.

Canon did blew it when it came to DR and banding/ shadow noise compared to you-know-which-model. But then if you are hinting that 5d3 is not up to the mark to you it doesn't in anyway mean it's not for others. I am totally happy with the results i get with my 5d3 (studio/Low-light & generic use).

I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.

You can only achieve the maximum frame rate when the shutter speed is high enough. The shutter speed needs to be high enough to account for shutter lag and mirror blackout time as well, which are on the order of 125ms for the 5D III. If your shutter speed is too slow, you can't actually achieve exactly 6fps...thus the "up to 6fps".

The pictures I find of the 5D3 show no such thing. It'd be really awkward to hold if it did.

You aren't looking at the right pictures. The multicontroller was a big new thing with the 5D III battery grip. To put the issue to rest and eliminate any more "None of the pictures I've seen show it", take a look at TDP's review...the third photo shows the multicontroller on the grip quite clearly...and it doesn't get in the way:

The sensor is effectively identical to that in the 5D2, no high-ISO usability improvement, no improvement on low-ISO banding/shadow noise. Note that having more aggressive default NR when saving to JPEG files does not qualify as a high-ISO improvement.

The sensor has a 16% improvement in Q.E. as well as lower minimum read noise. Thanks to both of those, there is a visible two-fold improvement in high ISO usability, which falls around 12800 ISO without the need for NR (i.e. comparing direct 5D II RAW to 5D III RAW). (Besides, the whole notion of "usable" is sketchy at best...there are forms of photography that don't require artistically usable ISO, such as documentary and police photography, where ISO 25600 or even the boost ISO settings are "usable". Not to mention the fact that if you can't get the shot at all at a "low" ISO, you really have nothing to lose by using a higher one.) Complaining about "default" settings is just a copout. Don't like the "defaults"? Change em...they ARE configurable!

BTW, high ISO unusable? Try this...ISO 25,600, 1D X (which would be about how good the 5D III @ ISO 12800 is from a noise standpoint):

Regarding whether all the improvements in the 5D III are worth the upgrade...well, there isn't a formula for that. That is something each photographer has to determine for himself. The same goes for a "big megapixel" camera...whether the Canon Big MP body will suit a photographer is up to the photographer to decide. If we assume the big mp sensor has the same read noise as the 5D III (which I find unlikely...I figure it would be closer to the 7D which is about 4x less than the 5D III), the higher pixel count will produce improved results when scaled down to 5D III size. If the sensor does have 7D-level read noise (which I figure would be the case given the fact that the sensor would have the same pixel size, and similar FWC), overall read noise would be considerably lower than the 5D III, and even better when scaled to the same size.

Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.

What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.

In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?

First, what makes you think I'm 'fixed on megapixels'?? I'm quite happy with the 18 MP that I have. Also, in case it escaped your notice, this rumor thread is about a high MP Canon body...no guarantee of better IQ, and as I alluded to earlier, high MP doesn't mean 'better'.

Because when I was critical of the 5D3 sensor (without being specific), you mentioned megapixels.

But I do agree - more megapixels does not necessarily mean better IQ.

If Canon do deliver more MP and the IQ is about the same then they'll quite likely get blasted again.

More and more, people want discernibly better IQ, not just more MP or the same MP.

Quote

Second, I do take issue with your statements that Canon's current sensors are somehow 'bad'. I'm not saying they're the best on the market, they're not...but implying they're sub-par is rather disingenuous.

Ok, that's just a battle of words that would make lawyers rub their hands with glee.

Quote

Third, who the heck is 'the entire Canon community'? I can only assume you're referring to the tiny minority of people here bitching about Canon's 'terribly low DR' and 'horrible, shot-destroying pattern noise.' The 'Canon community' and in fact, the dSLR-buying community at large seems to be quite pleased with the 5DIII, and with Canon in general.

Yes, they're so please with them that online vendors have effectively had fire sales to get rid of stock. e.g. Adorama's(?) sale of 900+ units at $2750. So a store bought a lot of them from Canon and obviously they didn't walk out as quickly as imagined, so the store had to take emergency measures to offload them.

If Canon hadn't of introduced MAP, the price of the 5D Mark III would probably now be at around $2800 everywhere, if not lower.

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?

As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking. Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born.

Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.

What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.

In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?

No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.

I'd like to know how a higher frame rate delivers better pictures. What it really delivers is pictures faster but if you know something I don't, please go ahead...

A high fps also introduces more shake into the camera body because the slap of that mirror against the camera body transfers momentum from the mirror to the camera.

Quote

The best sensor in the world doesn't matter a wit if its AF system and frame rate are low enough such that you can't actually capture the one frame where everything is still and sharp...a soft frame is a soft frame, regardless of whether the sensor pumps out beautifully soft pixels or not.

Again, frame rate does not correlate with sharpness. Just look at the 1D3. 10fps that delivered less than 50% usable pictures due to AF quirkiness. Boy was that a dog of a camera for sports photographers.

Quote

I'd offer that there are far more photographers who shoot high action in one form or another who use ISO settings 800 and above than photographers who shoot still scenes or low action and use ISO settings 400 and below. To the greater majority of photographers, the AF system and frame rate are critical factors to attaining the IQ they require. To that end, I'd say Canon did well by their customers, and clearly listened to what their customers were asking for...less megapixels, higher ISO, less noise at higher ISO (hell, even I asked for that!!! )

If I was a professional sports shooter, I wouldn't be using the 5DIII - except for those post match shots of presentations, etc, where a flash is often used.

Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.

So $800 or $900 more for improved AF.

Sorry, I completely disagree with that conclusion. With a few notable (and *cough* vociferous) minority exceptions, the consensus was that the sensor-based IQ of the 5DII was excellent - it wasn't broke, and Canon didn't fix it.

And if Canon thought that then they're guilty of being complacent.

Quote

Perhaps your finger-pressing ability is not that fine, however our minds can indeed sense minute differences. Our ability to measure time perceptually is not limited to 1-second increments, and even if we cannot send an impulse from our brains to our fingers in 1/20th of a second, that does not mean we cannot sense the difference between 1/10th and 1/20th of a second. Especially in the context of a camera shutter...looking through the viewfinder, it is very easy to recognize a TWO-FOLD difference in shutter performance, especially when holding the shutter button down and watching frame after frame race past at nearly double the speed. I'll say that again...a TWO FOLD, FACTOR OF TWO, 100% or DOUBLE the difference in shutter speed...relatively speaking, that is a huge difference!

You're mixing two very different things up in the one paragraph as if they were the same. And the way you're screaming about 6fps is similar to the way people screamed about more megapixels in days gone by. *yawn*

But again, taking more pictures every second has nothing to do with IQ. Really, it just determines how quickly our SF/SD/HDD fills up.

In the last 3 years of shooting every week, I've needed/wanted more than 3 fps exactly once.

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

dern right the 5D3 will produce better photos of action. the magic is in the AF system: if the subject distance is changing, the 5D3 will produce more keepers that are in focus.

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

dern right the 5D3 will produce better photos of action. the magic is in the AF system: if the subject distance is changing, the 5D3 will produce more keepers that are in focus.

Simple as that. I think that is hard to deny even for the biggest 5D3 hater.

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

Thanks, now I understand you. Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had. This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made. If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

Thanks, now I understand you. Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had. This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made. If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.

Pity that you didn't understand what I wrote.

What makes a sharp photo?Shutter speed + lens + focus

If the speed of the object is such that the shutter speed isn't enough to freeze the object then it don't matter how good the focus is, you're still left with a blurry image.

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

Thanks, now I understand you. Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had. This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made. If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.

Pity that you didn't understand what I wrote.

What makes a sharp photo?Shutter speed + lens + focus

If the speed of the object is such that the shutter speed isn't enough to freeze the object then it don't matter how good the focus is, you're still left with a blurry image.

Pity that you don't understand what you wrote.

What makes a sharp photo?Shutter speed + lens + focus

Since the 5DII and 5DIII can obviously be set to the same shutter speed with the same lens, the difference is the AF system. "Focus" - your word. So...what you wrote suggests that you think the 5DIII's AF is not better than the 5DII's.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...you also argued that the Canon DIGISUPER 75 broadcast TV lens was a camera, and you were way off base there, too (despite the fact that you refused to admit your mistake).

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

Thanks, now I understand you. Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had. This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made. If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.

Pity that you didn't understand what I wrote.

What makes a sharp photo?Shutter speed + lens + focus

If the speed of the object is such that the shutter speed isn't enough to freeze the object then it don't matter how good the focus is, you're still left with a blurry image.

dude. surely you can see that the converse is also true: if the subject distance is changing at a rate such that the AF performance cannot achieve focus, then it doesn't matter how fast the shutter speed is; you're still left with a fuzzy image. now review what you wrote:

Quote

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"??

the answer to that question is "yes". Using the 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture has a 5DII will result in better photos if the action involves a dynamic subject distance in situations where the 5D2 is disadvantaged. Yes, this does mean that "action" is defined to include things that move towards or away from the camera.

In order to claim that the 5D3 offers no advantage over the 5D2 you must arbitrarily restrict the definition of "action" to refer only to movements where the distance to the focal point of interest does not change relative to the camera, and scenarios where you are trying to stop 100% of the "action" with the shutter. Thats like saying AF doesn't even matter at all, even for action photos, in which case you may as well use an old EF or F1 body and use their shutters to stop your action. But I digress. But if you are really serious about testing your theory, pick up a 5D2 and a 5D3, chose a shutter speed in the 1/250th region, and go try to follow a P51 at an airshow. Keep the plane sharp and the prop blurred; afterwords, go tell the pilot that is activity is not "action", and the rest of us that you aren't getting better photos with the 5D3. Any action photographer with a lick of sense and a day of experience will walk away and leave you to your own devices -- something that is going to happen right here and now.